Advertisement · 728 × 90

Posts by The Christ Almighty Blog

Original post on deacon.social

Job had three friends whose bad advice takes up quite a lot of his book. These guys aren’t to be trusted. The Lᴏʀᴅ himself says they were false. [Jb 42.7-8] Yet every once in a while—usually because they’re pulling verses out of a topical bible but not checking the context—people quote Job’s […]

2 days ago 0 1 0 0
Preview
The Lᴏʀᴅ created humans. #### Genesis 1.26-31. Day six in the creation story of _Genesis_ 1 started with God creating the land animals. After that, on the same day, he created humans. Then he gives us humans the planet he created, tells us—and the animals—we get the plants for food, and basically wraps up the whole of creation by recognizing the whole thing as ט֖וֹב מְאֹ֑ד/_tov meöd_ , “good in abundance.” Or as the KJV put it, “very good,” but maybe _very_ isn’t quite superlative enough. God considered it _profoundly_ good. So that’s how I translated it. _Genesis_ 1.26-31 KWL 26God said, _“We will make humanity in our image,_ _like our likeness._ _They’ll have dominion over the sea’s fish,_ _over the heavens’ bird,_ _over the beast,_ _over all the land,_ _over every creeper creeping on the land.”_ 27God created humanity in his image; he created it in God’s image; he created them male and female. 28God blessed them. God told them, _“Bear fruit. Be many._ _Fill the land and take it over._ _Rule over the sea’s fish,_ _over the heavens’ bird,_ _over every life which creeps on the land.”_ 29God said, _“Look, I give you_ _every seeding plant on the face of the land,_ _every tree, every seeding fruit in it._ _It’s for food._ 30 _To every life in the land,_ _to the heavens’ bird,_ _to everything creeping in the land_ _with a living soul in it,_ _every green plant is food.”_ It was so. 31God saw everything he did. Look, it was profoundly good. It was dusk, then dawn. Day six. I remind you: The pagan myths had the gods shape the earth for _themselves_. Humans were kind of an afterthought: “Oh yeah, we’re gonna need slaves. Let’s make humans.” Their humans are then instructed to get to work on the gods’ behalf—and don’t annoy them, or the gods will plague them. Maybe kill them and send them to a really bad afterlife. But for loyal slaves, a really _good_ afterlife—and then they got to work on the afterlife. In _Genesis_ God does no such thing. There’s nothing here about _God_ ruling the earth. (Yes, there is stuff about that elsewhere in the bible. But not in this story.) In this creation story, God doesn’t make the earth for himself, but for _us_. He creates humans and tells _us_ to run the place. It’s _our_ planet. It’s _our_ duty to sort it out and keep it functioning properly. Not his. He doesn’t even warn us to run the planet properly, lest we suffer consequences. (And as we’ve seen in various environmental catastrophes, there _are_ consequences. Neither does God threaten us with a bad afterlife if we muck things up—God doesn’t even _make_ an afterlife. Yeah, think about _that_. There _is_ no afterlife in the ancient Hebrew creation stories. Because why would you need one? Sin and human death weren’t part of God’s ecosystem. (Plant death yes; animals and fungi gotta eat! _Possibly_ some animal death too; God doesn’t address what sea creatures were meant to eat, and usually that’d be each other. Anyway.) Humans were meant to live forever—and still are. So why create an afterlife? Whereas ancient pagan religions—especially the Egyptians!—were _obsessed_ with the afterlife. Every single thing they did was for the sake of a good afterlife. Annoyingly, many Christians get the very same way about “heaven,” because they’ve fallen for our popular culture’s myths about dying and going to heaven—which aren’t at all consistent with what the New Testament teaches about resurrection and New Jerusalem. Yeah, after we humans mucked up God’s profoundly good creation in _Genesis_ 3, God had to create more stuff, like the afterlife. Which _still_ isn’t really part of God’s ecosystem. It exists, but it’s purely temporary. Eventually God’s throwing it into the burning lake of sulfur. Rv 20.11 It’ll be gone. #### “We.” In verse 26, God says he’ll create a human, and here for the first time he refers to himself as “we,” and refers to “our image” and “our likeness.” _We_ and _our_ , meaning more than one person. Skeptical scholars will actually claim this story was swiped from a polytheistic pagan story, and the author of _Genesis_ forgot to fix all the pronouns. But nope, that’s not what’s going on here. The ancients believed God isn’t the only being in his throne room, as you can tell from Isaiah, Ezekiel, and John’s visions of heaven. He’s got a court; it’s full of angels and other mighty spirits. Most scholars assume God’s addressing this court. Some Christians do too—they figure God’s got an audience, and here’s where he addresses them. “Hey, let’s make humans who are sapient like us.” More Christians think God’s addressing himself, and read the trinity into these pronouns. It’s like God the Son decided to tell God the Father, or God the Holy Spirit, “Hey, I want you in on this. Help me make Adam.” The Pharisees claimed God was, at this time, speaking to the Word of God—so yep, it’s the very same scenario, with the Father creating and the Son pitching in. Thing is, _John_ says the Son created everything. Jn 1.3 So if the Pharisees are right, they have it backwards: The Son’s creating and the Father’s pitching in. Trinity is the most popular Christian explanation. Many a Christian will claim the writer of _Genesis_ somehow knew God’s a trinity. I’ve also heard someone claim this was a divinely inspired typo—the writer didn’t _mean_ to say God is more than One, yet somehow “we” slipped into the text a few times, so we Christians could get some Old Testament evidence for the trinity. But I don’t think this explanation will win any fans among inerrantists. My own guess—which is _not_ a common one, but I once heard it before and thought it’s a really good one—is God was speaking to the land. In _Genesis_ 2.7, God creates humans out of dirt. And you’ll recall in the previous verses, God commanded the land to spit up plants Ge 1.11 and animals, Ge 1.24 so here he’s _still_ speaking to the land. Humanity is meant to resemble God’s divine image, _and_ the earth’s material image. After all, we’re not pure spirit like God; nor are we pure animal like monkeys. We’re _both_ —we’re spirits encased in meat. Apes whom God decided to make his children. If either of these descriptions sounds horribly wrong to you, it’s because you’re used to thinking of humans as an entirely unique creature… instead of a bizarre hybrid between two different things. Not angels, not chimpanzees, but resembling _both_ , and _better_. We’re matter _and_ spirit. We’re a “missing link,” so to speak, between what God is, and what the rest of creation is. We contain both images. And no, it’s not a bad thing. God became human too, remember? Jesus had no problem with the idea of being put into a body which sweats, farts, itches, aches, gets tired, gets random erections _just_ before the teacher calls you to the front of the class; he gave up infinity to do it, because he loves us enough to join us at our level—and lift us up to his. In _Genesis_ 3 we also read about God hanging out in the garden, _on earth_ , with his humans. We’re meant to get the sense this was always the plan. Maybe God _always_ intended to become one of us and live among us. We think he only did it to save us from sin, but perhaps sin turned it from something purely voluntary on his part, into something more necessary. #### In God’s image. Historically, Christians and Christian theologians have _really_ messed up the interpretation of צֶלֶם/_chelém_ , “image,” and דְּמוּת/_demút_ , “likeness.” _Genesis_ 1 is written as Hebrew poetry, so these words are meant to be synonyms: They mean the _very same thing_ as one another. Humans resemble God. But the theologians kept trying to claim “image” means one thing, and “likeness” means another, and every so often I hear a Christian who tries to teach how “image” is different from “likeness” when _no they’re not_. As for what that resemblance is: Obviously it’s not a _physical_ resemblance, since God didn’t yet have a body, no matter what Mormons claim. It’s a _spiritual_ resemblance. We’re likewise sentient beings. We think, plan, create, love, and have free will. In every non-material way (except, of course, evil and our vastly lower power level) we’re just like God. Other animals might come close, but they weren’t made in his image. Humans were. And you’ll note both male _and_ female, _equally_ , are made in God’s image. Our spiritual characteristics, and God’s, have nothing to do with gender. Gender only has to do with how we resemble _earth_ , and the other creatures of our world. Obviously we procreate like the animals. But unlike the animals, we’re also meant to procreate like God does, and adopt people into our families, our nations, our churches; to appropriately share our lives with one another, and love one another as God loves us. Lastly, food. Humans gotta eat! So we’re allowed to eat all the plants. Since some plants are poisonous, various Christians wonder whether God didn’t change some of those plants into poisonous ones, or create new poisonous plants, after we humans sinned. And I remind you once again: _Genesis_ is not a science book. Its intent was to tell us God created the world for us. Pagans were taught there were special sacred trees, or sacred plants, which only the gods could touch. But no, there aren’t; every tree was created for us, and no tree is off-limits. Well… except the one, but that’s in chapter 2. It’s not part of _this_ creation story; it’s part of the _next_ one.

Pagan myths had the gods create the world for themselves, but in the Hebrew creation stories, God created it for us humans. We’re not an afterthought; we’re intentionally made to have a relationship with him. It was always the plan.

https://www.christalmighty.net/2026/03/humans.html

3 days ago 0 1 0 0
Original post on deacon.social

St. Francis supposedly once said, “Preach the gospel—use words if necessary.” Christians who are anxious about speaking up, love this saying. Problem is, how did Jesus proclaim and describe God’s kingdom? With 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘴.

Actions are important, but without words they’re regularly misinterpreted. Use […]

4 days ago 0 1 0 0
Preview
Your next fast. Weeks ago I casually mentioned to a coworker that Mardi Gras (also known as Shrove Tuesday, the day before Lent begins) was next week, and of course Ash Wednesday is the next day. His eyes grew wide: “Lent _already?_ I don’t even know what I’m giving up!” He’s Catholic, so he always participates in Catholic-style Lenten fasting: No meat but seafood, no alcohol, plus one extra thing he’s gotta go without until Easter. (Plus his bishop gives him an exception for St. Patrick’s Day. He’s not Irish, but he still wants a Guinness.) He was stunned some years ago when I informed him Sundays are an exception to Lent—he wouldn’t believe me till he double-checked with his priest, who confirmed it’s true, but warned him, “Don’t go nuts with this knowledge”—don’t binge to make up for the days you abstained. He advised it’s probably a good idea to continue abstaining, even though it’s Sunday, just to keep your momentum going. Gotta admit there’s something to that. Of _course_ my coworker wasn’t prepared for Lent. Many aren’t. Now if you’re a regular at a church which has an upcoming fast, they’ll usually give you a heads-up. (At one church I went to, many, _many_ heads-up. Pastor _really_ wanted all of us to participate. Misery loves company, I joked.) On the other hand if you’re not regular at all—if you’re a once-a-month attendee, or only do the holidays—they won’t get a chance to warn you, so _you_ gotta mark your calendar. Which is tricky with “moving fasts” like Lent, ’cause it’s the 40 days (plus six Sundays) before Easter, and Easter moves all over the calendar, and if you can’t keep tabs on when Easter is, good luck with Ash Wednesday. It’s gonna blindside you like it did my coworker. And you’ll notice for many people, when they’re not mentally prepared for an unexpected situation, they just won’t do it. They’re not the “fight” or “flight” type; they’re the “freeze” type, and just shut down. Drop a last-minute dinner party on them, and nope, they’re not going: “Oh, but I was planning to binge-watch [NETFLIX SHOW THEY’VE BEEN PROCRASTINATING THE LAST SIX YEARS, AND HONESTLY WEREN’T PLANNING TO WATCH TONIGHT, BUT HERE’S AS GOOD AN EXCUSE AS ANY TO START], and I’m in my sweatpants already, and… yeah, I’m gonna pass.” You could already tell they were gonna pass from the panicked look on their face. It’s hardly a ne phenomenon. I imagine the people in Jesus’s Dinner Party Story, who likewise came up with pathetic excuses for why they weren’t coming, had a similar freaked-out look on their faces: “Oh I’m _so_ not in the mood for this.” But then again, they weren’t in the mood for this when they got their first invitation. The same is true for most people who know a fast, _any_ kind of fast, is coming. They don’t wanna. So when you spring a fast upon them—“We have a major problem and we need you to pray about it, and if you can, maybe you could fast too?”—they’re gonna scramble for any reason to do no such thing. They’ll pray; that’s not the problem. They’re _not_ gonna fast. They were _really_ looking forward to eating that lasagna in the freezer. Yeah, it’s been there for the past six months, but suddenly, inexplicably, they have a _raging_ desire for lasagna. If any of this sounds like you: It sounds like me too. So here’s a wild thought: What if we _don’t_ approach fasting with a bad attitude? #### Planning ahead to fast. Some people are naturally gifted with self-control. I am not one of those people. It’s not a common gift. Those people who brag about how _they’re_ naturally self-controlled, most likely aren’t one of those people either. The few who actually _are_ naturally self-controlled, never seem to notice. They just go through their daily life, and when everyone else is tempted to do something, they casually say, “Ooh! But no thank you.” And move along while everyone else is still salivating. Nope, most of us have to work at it. Annoyingly, the only way to get better at self-discipline is, you guessed it, _self-discipline_. Which our flesh _really_ doesn’t wanna do. Even _after_ we’ve made serious attempts to master it. It’s always gonna take effort, because the flesh _always_ doesn’t wanna. The flesh wants comfort. And no, not always physical comfort, as demonstrated by the gym rats I know, who _love_ making their flesh ache with a good hard workout. We crave _psychological_ comfort… which usually resembles physical comfort. Well, planning ahead creates psychological comfort. If you don’t know when you’re next gonna fast, but you know you _are_ gonna fast—you’ve at least determined _this_ time you’re not gonna capitulate to your flesh—get ready for it. Then once that time comes, you won’t freeze, you won’t flail; you’ll figure, “Okay, I prepared for this,” and dive right in. For Lenten fasting, it’s actually super easy: Sports. No March Madness, no Opening Day. That immediate visceral reaction you’re feeling right now?—“ _No! N OT THAT!_ Why’d you have to mention _that?_ ”—is the obvious sign you’ve made an idol of it, and can’t prioritize Jesus over it, so you kinda _need_ to abstain from it. (And if you have no such reaction, it’s probably not that. But be honest with yourself. “I _barely_ reacted” doesn’t mean maybe you _still_ shouldn’t abstain from sports.) In any case, I’m pretty sure you already know what you oughta abstain from. Certainly your spouse, parents, or kids do. And the Holy Spirit does, if you ask him. Figure out that thing, and the next time someone calls for a fast, there you go: That’s what you give up. No need to scramble for something to give up; it’s pre-planned. For other kinds of fasting, like when your church decides to drop a Daniel fast on everyone: Prepare to put your usual diet on hold. Have some space in the back of the refrigerator, hiding behind everything you _can_ eat, for everything you can’t _yet_ eat. Be ready to suspend lunch and dinner plans where appropriate. Basically, _be mentally ready_ to fast. Just like you’re mentally ready for Jesus to return. You realize there are some Christians who _aren’t_ mentally ready for that; who were really hoping _they_ could rule the world instead of turning the keys directly over to Jesus. They’re gonna be horrified to discover he’s a bronze-skinned foreigner who believes in universal healthcare, and wind up resisting him. Gonna be interesting to see if Jesus still raptures any of them regardless. He may. But I digress: _You_ need to get ready to fast, just like _they_ need to get ready for Jesus. And if your flesh is still very resistant to the idea of even _getting ready_ to fast, start whipping it into shape. No, not literally. Skip a meal here and there. Skip desserts. Eat something healthy but bland. Remind it who’s in charge. Little acts of self-discipline and willpower can grow into bigger acts, so start working on ’em. (Oh, and if you’ve skipped Lenten fasting so far: Nobody will penalize you for starting late. Jump in.)

Part of the reason people don’t participate in #fasting is because they’re not mentally prepared for it, so they just don’t. So if you wanna develop your spiritual self-discipline, get prepared! Be ready instead of flaky.

www.christalmighty.net/2026/03/your-next-fast.h...

5 days ago 3 1 3 0
Original post on deacon.social

Before Jesus’s trial before the Judean senate, he had a private little interrogation before former head priest Annas bar Seth. Only the gospel of 𝘑𝘰𝘩𝘯 tells of this; the other gospels make it sound like Jesus went right to the senate for trial. But only John seems to know Annas 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 ran […]

5 days ago 0 1 0 0
Original post on deacon.social

Too many Evangelicals believe it’s impossible to believe both the bible and science, so they gotta pick one of the two. It’s a false dilemma, and you can reject it. Please do.

𝘎𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘴 1 wasn’t written to explain 𝘩𝘰𝘸 God created the world. Only 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 God created the world; he’s not like the pagan […]

1 week ago 1 1 0 0
Preview
Strong numbers. Or Strong’s numbers. Whichever. From time to time I refer to Strong numbers or Strong’s numbers. I suppose I need to explain what they are lest people get the idea I’m introducing them to numerology. A concordance is a list of every single word in a book. In the past, people made concordances for the bible, and you could use them as kind of a bible index. In those pre-internet days, if you remembered there’s a verse about “the meek shall inherit the earth,” but couldn’t remember it’s in the beatitudes, couldn’t remember _where_ it is, and obviously couldn’t ask Siri or Google where it was, you’d go to your bookshelf and pull out that big, massive, 20-pound concordance, flip to “meek,” and find out where it’s hiding. Seems it appears 17 times in the King James Version: Nu 12.3 | the man Moses was very _m._ , above all the men | H 6035 ---|---|--- Ps 22.26 | The _m._ shall eat and be satisfied | H 6035 Ps 25.9 | The _m._ shall he guide in judgment | H 6035 Ps 25.9 | and the _m._ shall he teach his way. | H 6035 Ps 37.11 | But the _m._ shall inherit the earth | H 6035 Ps 76.9 | to save all the _m._ of the earth. | H 6035 Ps 147.6 | The LORD lifteth up the _m._ | H 6035 Ps 149.4 | he will beautify the _m._ with salvation | H 6035 Is 11.4 | reprove with equity for the _m._ of the earth | H 6035 Is 29.19 | The _m._ also shall increase their joy | H 6035 Is 61.1 | to preach good tidings unto the _m._ | H 6035 Am 2.7 | and turn aside the way of the _m._ | H 6035 Zp 2.3 | Seek ye the LORD, all ye _m._ of the earth | H 6035 Mt 5.5 | Blessed are the _m._ : for they shall inherit | G 4239 Mt 11.29 | for I am _m._ and lowly in heart | G 4235 Mt 21.5 | Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, _m._ | G 4239 1Pe 3.4 | even the ornament of a _m._ and quiet spirit | G 4239 So check it out: The meek inheriting the earth actually comes up twice. In _Psalm_ 37.11, and in Christ Jesus’s “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.” Mt 5.5 Some bibles have a mini-concordance in the back, to be used as just this sort of index. They don’t include every word. Really, not even an exhaustive concordance does: There are 64,040 instances of “the” in the KJV. (More instances of “the” than there are verses.) But when people are trying to track down a verse, seldom are they looking for the word “the.” Or “but,” or “and,” or “he,” or other all-too-common words. Anyway. Dr. James Strong wasn’t the first guy to produce an exhaustive concordance of the KJV, but his was powerfully useful for one reason: His numbers. When you looked up any word in his 1890 concordance, you’d find he provided a number. In the back of the book are his _Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary of the Old Testament_ , and _Greek Dictionary of the New Testament_. Don’t even have to know the Hebrew or Greek alphabets: You look up the word by its number, and there you go: It’s the proper original-language word behind the KJV’s translation. Wanna know the original word for “ass” in _2 Peter_ 2.16? Strong’s concordance will point you to number 5268, and once you look up that number in the Greek dictionary, you find this: **5268. ὑποζύγιον hupozugion**, _hoop-od-zoog'-ee-on_ ; neuter of a compound of 5259 and 2218; an animal under the yoke (draught-beast), i.e. (specially), a donkey: ass. Nice, huh? Wanna know the original word for “buttocks” in _Isaiah_ 20.4? **8357. שֵׁתָה shethah**, _shay-thaw'_ ; from 7896; the seat (of the person):—buttock. Yes, I’m twelve. Juvenile words aside, the number idea was just plain brilliant. Yeah, Strong could’ve only given people the original-language word, then turned ’em loose to fumble around for it. But I know _way_ too many people who are totally wierded out by foreign languages. Even Spanish scares ’em. Throw a foreign alphabet in there and they’re wholly lost—how are they to know Hebrew alphabetical order? (Yeah, _Psalm_ 119. But still.) Anyway, anybody can look up a number. So instead of trying to figure out how on earth you’re gonna find ὑποζύγιον or שֵׁתָה in the bible, you look up the numbers 5268 and 8357. Simple. Nope, Strong’s system isn’t perfect. Some of the numbers are redundant: Different forms of the same word sometimes got different numbers. Syriac words (which Strong called “Chaldee”) got mixed up with the Hebrew words, and people can mix up the Hebrew definition with the Syriac definitions and get some strange interpretations. Pronunciation is way off ’cause it’s not taken from native speakers, who’d pronounce ὑποζύγιον as i.poʊ'dzi.gi.oʊn not hup.ɑd'zug.i.ɑn. And if you wanna use Strong’s Greek dictionary to look up words from the Septuagint, he didn’t write it for the Septuagint, so good luck. (For that you’ll need a Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon… and maybe a semester of ancient Greek. But the popularity and utility of Strong’s concordance means you’ll find Strong numbers in a whole lot of reference materials. #### The G-K numbers. If you’ve read my article on the King James Version, you might know this particular translation has its deficiencies. Starting with the fact its “translators” were really just updating the Bishop’s Bible, not translating it afresh from the original texts. And if they _did_ double-check with the originals, their Hebrew Old Testament came from a decent copy of the Masoretic Text, but their Greek New Testament was Robert Estienne’s edition of the _Textus Receptus_. Textual criticism was a brand-new science… and they went about it all wrong. Estienne, and Desiderus Erasmus before him, didn’t base the _Textus_ on the most ancient Greek copies of the bible. Instead it was a compilation of every present-day bible they could find. Including the Vulgate, which Erasmus had to translate back into Greek so he could add it to his NT. Once scholars started editing their Greek NTs _properly_ , basing them on archaeology and the most ancient texts, it meant removing all the verses the _Textus_ added… and in some cases using a few words which aren’t in Strong’s dictionaries. When new bible translations, based on today’s Greek NTs, wanna create Strong-style exhaustive concordances, they hit this snag: Certain words in these New Testaments don’t have Strong numbers. _Now_ what? They took two different routes. Take the New American Standard Bible: When they cranked out their first concordance in 1997, they added the additional words to their Hebrew and Greek dictionaries. In alphabetical order, as they’d usually go. If a word doesn’t have a Strong number, they took the previous Strong number and added A. There; now they could still use Strong’s numbers. (They have yet to update their concordance for the NASB’s 2020 edition, so if you’re shopping for NASB concordances, they’re still keyed to the 1995 NASB.) The other route was that of the New International Version. For their first concordance in 1984, the editors, Edward W. Goodrick and John R. Kohlenberger III, simply renumbered the dictionaries from scratch. They called their system Goodrick-Kohlenberger numbers; G-K numbers for short. The NIV and its publisher, Zondervan, have tried their darnedest to get the G-K system to catch on. They use it in all their reference materials, and regularly nudge other publishers to use it for _their_ concordances. But none of ’em really do. Hence Kohlenberger has taken to producing concordances marketed as “Strongest Strong’s” for various translations—which use Strong numbers, and if you happen to have any NIV reference materials, they include his G-K numbers too. Me, I use computer bibles. Plus I know Hebrew and Greek alphabetical order. So it‘s been a _long_ time since I’ve used a concordance… or looked up a word by its Strong or G-K number. Really, I only use ’em on **TXAB** to link original-language words to Blue Letter Bible—for your convenience; you’re welcome. Every once in a while you’ll come across bible nerds who actually _care_ which number system you use—Strong versus G-K—and insist you stick to their favorite, for all sorts of reasons. I won’t go into why. Frankly they’re like tech nerds who demand you get an iPhone or an Android phone, just because it’s _their_ favorite… and all you wanna do is make phone calls. Who _cares?_ What’s gonna do the job? Both. So why the fuss? But in most resources, you’re gonna find Strong numbers. Like the KJV, they came around first, and unlike G-K numbers they’re not under copyright: Everyone can use ’em. So they do. And I recommend you get a computer bible, and click on the _words_ instead of looking up the numbers. Way easier.

What Strong numbers are, and why they’re mighty useful when you’re looking up the original-language words in your bible. (That is, till you learn those original languages and no longer need’ em.)

https://www.christalmighty.net/2016/03/strong.html

1 week ago 0 1 0 0
Preview
St. Patrick’s Confession. Pádraig of Ireland, whom we know as St. Patrick or St. Paddy, died 17 March 493. Old Christian custom is to celebrate saints’ days not on their birthday (which sometimes even _they_ didn’t know), but on the day they died and went to paradise. So, happy St. Patrick’s Day. In the United States, Irish Americans (and pretty much everyone else, ’cause the more the merrier) treat the day as a celebration of Irish culture. Thing is, Americans know bupkis about _actual_ Irish culture. We barely know the difference between an Irish, Scots, or Yorkshire accent. What we _do_ know is Guinness and Jameson—though we’ll settle for anything alcoholic, including beer filled with green food coloring. Me, I used to love McDonald’s “shamrock shakes,” though the last time I had one I found it _way_ too sweet to enjoy. (It’s because they take an already-sugary vanilla shake, then add sugary green mint stuff.) Oreos help, but I still much prefer adding mint and vanilla to a Starbucks Frappuccino. Most American customs consist of drinking, eating stereotypical Irish food like corned beef and potatoes, parades in which the religious participants express varying degrees of outrage at all the irreligious participants, and all sorts of Irish distortions—some of ’em unknowingly offensive or racist. British Americans used to treat Irish Americans like crap, bringing over their prejudices from the old country, and some of that hatred is _still_ around. I have a few Irish ancestors myself (although way more of ’em are German, Dutch, and Scots), so I’ve not experienced that prejudice firsthand. But I have witnessed it. Oh, and wearing green. American custom is to wear green, lest someone pinch you. But the color actually comes from the political struggle between Protestant monarchists and Catholic socialists. Much like Americans use red and blue to signify party affiliation, the Irish use green and orange. And whenever we Americans wear green, we unwittingly declare we’re in favor of socialism and Catholicism. Now, as Americans you would _think_ this is because we’re anti-monarchy (even though some Americans are perfectly happy to anoint their favorite candidate as king), but really it’s because we don’t know any better and the socialists were very successful in publicizing green. If I _gotta_ pick a color though, it’d be orange; I’m Protestant. No I’m not monarchist; no I have nothing against my Roman Catholic sisters and brothers! Like I said it’s if I _gotta_ pick a color. I risk getting pinched over it, but I still prefer an informed choice over unthinkingly following the crowd. If you’re Catholic, six years out of seven, St. Patrick’s Day custom is to beg your local bishop for a day off from Lenten fasting. Since you don’t fast on Sunday, back in 2024 you automatically had a day off from Lent. But other years, saint’s days aren’t automatically feast days, so you just gotta hope your bishop hasn’t had it up to _here_ with all the Catholics-in-name-only who are gonna take the day off regardless, and misbehave. In any event, for Americans our holidays aren’t really about serious remembrance, but having a good time. Which really annoys our veterans every Veterans Day. Now imagine how Patrick feels, with people celebrating his day by puking into moonroofs. The _very, very little_ which popular culture knows about Patrick, is… * He drove snakes out of Ireland. (He actually didn’t.) * He liked to use shamrocks to explain trinity. (Badly.) * He once turned his walking stick into a tree. (Actually, people don’t know that story so well.) * He’s “a Catholic saint.” (Patrick predates Roman Catholicism by about 250 years, which is why Patrick’s _also_ a saint in the Orthodox Church, same as St. Nicholas.) And that’s about it. Some stories about Patrick are also borrowed from the life of Bishop Palladius—whom the bishop of Rome, Celestine 1, sent to evangelize Ireland a few decades before Patrick came to Ireland. So those aren’t legit Patrick stories. People tell ’em anyway. When in doubt, go to the historical sources. So below, I’ve provided the _Confession of St. Patrick_ , his testimony. Comes from James O’Leary’s translation. Scripture references and minor edits were added by me. #### Chapter 1. > I, Patrick, a sinner, the rudest and least of all the faithful, and most contemptible to very many, had for my father Calpornius, a deacon, the son of Potitus, a priest, who lived in Bannaven Taberniae, for he had a small country house close by, where I was taken captive when I was nearly 16 years of age. I knew not the true God, and I was brought captive to Ireland with many thousand men, as we deserved; for we had forsaken God, and had not kept his commandments, and were disobedient to our priests, who admonished us for our salvation. And the LORD brought down upon us the anger of his Spirit, and scattered us among many nations, even to the ends of the earth, where now my littleness may be seen amongst strangers. > > And there the LORD showed me my unbelief, that at length I might remember my iniquities, and strengthen my whole heart towards the LORD my God, who looked down upon my humiliation, and had pity upon my youth and ignorance, and kept me before I knew him, and before I had wisdom or could distinguish between good and evil, and strengthened and comforted me as a father would his son. > > Therefore I cannot and ought not to be silent concerning the great benefits and graces which the LORD has bestowed upon me in the land of my captivity, since the only return we can make for such benefits is, after God has reproved us, to extol and confess his wonders before every nation under heaven. > > For there is no other God, nor ever was, nor shall be hereafter, except the LORD; the unbegotten Father, without beginning, by whom all things have their being, who upholds all things, as we have said; and his Son, Jesus Christ, whom, together with the Father, we testify to have always existed before the origin of the world, spiritually with the Father, ineffably begotten before every beginning; and by him were the visible things made—was made man, death being overthrown, in the heavens. And he has given him all power over every name of things in heaven and earth and hell, that every tongue should confess to him that Jesus Christ is Lord, and whose coming we expect ere long to judge the living and dead; who will render to every one according to his works; who hath poured forth abundantly on us both the gift of his Spirit and the pledge of immortality; who makes the faithful and obedient to become the sons of God and co-heirs with Christ; whom we confess and adore one God in the trinity of the holy name. > > For he himself has said by the prophet: “Call upon me in the day of your trouble: I will deliver you, and you shall magnify me.” Ps 50.15 And again he says: “It is honorable to reveal and confess the works of God.” Tb 12.11 > > Although I am imperfect in many things, I wish my brothers and acquaintances to know my dispositions, that they may be able to understand the desire of my soul. > > I am not ignorant of the testimony of my LORD, who declares in the psalm: “You will destroy all that speak a lie.” Ps 5.6 And again: “The mouth that belies, kills the soul.” Wi 1.11 And the same Lord: “Every idle word that men shall speak, they shall render an account for it in the Day of Judgment.” Mt 12.36 > > Therefore I ought, with great fear and trembling, to dread this sentence in that day when no one shall be able to withdraw or hide himself, but all must give an account, even of the least sins, before the judgment-seat of the Lord Christ. #### Chapter 2. > Therefore, although I thought of writing long ago, I feared the censure of men, because I had not learned as the others who studied the sacred writings in the best way, and have never changed their language since their childhood, but continually learned it more perfectly, while I have to translate my words and speech into a foreign tongue; and it can be easily proved from the style of my writings how I am instructed in speech and learning, for the wise man says: “By the tongue wisdom is discerned, and understanding and knowledge and learning by the word of the wise.” Si 4.29 > > But what avails an excuse, however true, especially when accompanied with presumption? For I, in my old age, strive after that which I was hindered from learning in my youth. But who will believe me? And if I say what I have said before, that as a mere youth, nay, almost a boy in words, I was taken captive, before I knew what I ought to seek and to avoid. Therefore I blush today and greatly dread to expose my ignorance, because I am not able to express myself briefly, with clear and well-arranged words, as the spirit desires and the mind and intellect point out. > > But if it had been given to me as to others, I would not have been silent for the recompense; and although it may seem to some who think thus that I put myself forward with my ignorance and too slow tongue, nevertheless it is written, “The tongues of stammerers shall speak readily and plain”; Is 32.4 how much more ought we to undertake this who are the epistle of Christ for salvation unto the ends of the earth, written in pure heart, if not with eloquence, yet with power and endurance, “not written with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God”; 2Co 3.3 and again the Spirit testifies, “Husbandry, it was ordained by the Most High.” Si 7.16 > > Therefore I undertook this work at first, though a rustic and a fugitive, and not knowing how to provide for the future; but this I know for certain: that before I was humbled, I was like a stone lying in deep mire, until he who is powerful came, and in his mercy raised me up, and indeed again succored and placed me in his part; and therefore I ought to cry out loudly, and thank the LORD in some degree for all his benefits, here and after, which the mind of man cannot estimate. > > Therefore be amazed, both great and small who fear God; rhetoricians and you of the LORD, hear and enquire who aroused me, a fool, from the midst of those who seem to be wise, and skilled in the law, and powerful in speech and in all things, and have inspired me (if indeed I be such) beyond others, though I am despised by this world, so that, with fear and reverence and without murmuring, I should faithfully serve this nation, to whom the charity of Christ hath transferred me, and given me for my life, if I shall survive; and that at last with humility and truth I should serve them. > > In the measure, therefore, of the faith of the trinity it behooves me to distinguish without shrinking from danger, and to make known the gift of God and everlasting consolation, and, without fear, confidently to spread abroad the name of God everywhere, so that after my death I may leave it to my Gallican brethren and to my sons, many thousands of whom I have baptized in the LORD. > > And I was neither worthy nor deserving that the LORD should so favor me, his servant, after such afflictions and great difficulties, after captivity, after many years, as to grant me such grace for this nation—a thing which, still in my youth, I had neither hoped for nor thought of. #### Chapter 3. > But after I had come to Ireland, I was daily tending sheep, and I prayed frequently during the day, and the love of God, and his faith and fear, increased in me more and more, and the spirit was stirred; so that in a single day I have said as many as a hundred prayers, and in the night nearly the same; so that I remained in the woods, and on the mountain, even before the dawn, I was roused to prayer, in snow, and ice, and rain, and I felt no injury from it, nor was there any slothfulness in me, as I see now, because the spirit was then fervent in me. > > And there one night I heard a voice, while I slept, saying to me: “You do fast well; fasting you shall soon go to your country.” And again, after a very short time, I heard a response, saying to me: “Behold, your ship is ready.” And the place was not near, but perhaps about two hundred miles distant, and I had never been there, nor did I know any one who lived there. Soon after this, I fled, and left the man with whom I had been six years, and I came in the strength of the LORD, who directed my way for good; and I feared nothing until I arrived at that ship. > > And the day on which I came the ship had moved out of her place; and I asked to go and sail with them, but the master was displeased, and replied angrily: “Do not seek to go with us.” And when I heard this, I went from them to go thither where I had lodged; and I began to pray as I went; but before I had ended my prayer, I heard one of them calling out loudly after me, “Come quickly, for these men are calling you”; and I returned to them immediately, and they began saying to me; “Come, we receive you in good faith; make such friendship with us as you wish.” And then that day I disdained to supplicate them, on account of the fear of God; but I hoped of them that they would come into the faith of Jesus Christ, for they were Gentiles; and this I obtained from them. > > And after three days, we reached land, and for 28 days we journeyed through a desert, and their provisions failed, and they suffered greatly from hunger; and one day the master began to say to me: “What say you, Christian? Your God is great and all-powerful; why can you not, then, pray for us, since we are perishing with hunger, and may never see the face of man again?” And I said to them plainly: “Turn sincerely to the LORD my God, to whom nothing is impossible, that he may send us food on your way until you are satisfied, for it abounds everywhere for him.” And with God’s help it was so done; for, lo! a flock of swine appeared in the way before our eyes, and they killed many of them, and remained there two nights, much refreshed and filled with their flesh; for many of them had been left exhausted by the wayside. After this, they gave the greatest thanks to God, and I was honored in their eyes. They also found wild honey, and offered me some of it, and one of them said: “This is offered in sacrifice, thanks be to God”; after this, I tasted no more. > > But the same night, while I was sleeping, I was strongly tempted by Satan (of which I shall be mindful as long as I shall be in this body), and there fell, as it were, a great stone upon me, and there was no strength in my limbs. And then it came into my mind, I know not bow, to call upon Elijah, and at the same moment I saw the sun rising in the heavens; and while I cried out “Elijah!” with all my might, behold! the splendor of the sun was shed upon me, and immediately shook from me all heaviness. And I believe that Christ my Lord cried out for me; and I hope that it will be so in the day of my adversity, as the Lord testifies in the gospel: “It is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking in you.” Mt 10.20 > > Some time after, I was taken captive; and on the first night I remained with them I heard a divine response, saying: “You shall be two months with them”; and so it was. On the 60th night the LORD delivered me out of their hands. > > And on the road he provided for us food, and fire, and dry weather daily, until on the 14th day we all came. As I have above mentioned, we journeyed 28 days through a desert, and on the night of our arrival we had no provisions left. #### Chapter 4. > And again, after a few years, I was with my relations in Britain, who received me as a son, and earnestly besought me that then, at least, after I had gone through so many tribulations, I would go nowhere from them. And there I saw, in the midst of the night, a man who appeared to come from Ireland, whose name was Victorious, and he had innumerable letters with him, one of which he gave to me; and I read the commencement of the epistle containing “The Voice of the Irish”; and as I read aloud the beginning of the letter, I thought I heard in my mind the voice of those who were near the wood of Focluti, which is near the western sea; and they cried out: “We entreat you, holy youth, to come and walk still amongst us.” And my heart was greatly touched, so that I could not read any more, and so I awoke. Thanks be to God that, after very many years, the LORD has granted them their desire! > > And on another night, whether in me or near me God knows, I heard eloquent words which I could not understand until the end of the speech, when it was said: “He who gave his life for you is he who speaks in you”; and so I awoke full of joy. > > And again, I saw one praying within me, and I was, as it were, within my body, and I heard, that is, above the inner man, and there he prayed earnestly with groans. And I was amazed at this, and marveled, and considered who this could be who prayed in me. But at the end of the prayer it came to pass that it was a bishop, and I awoke and remembered that the apostle said: “Likewise the Spirit also helps our infirmity, for we know not what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself asks for us with unspeakable groanings.” Ro 8.26 And again: The LORD is our advocate, who also makes intercession for us. 1Jn 2.1, He 7.25 > > And when I was tried by some of my elders, who came and spoke of my sins as an objection to my laborious episcopate, I was on that day sometimes strongly driven to fall away here and for ever. But the LORD spared a proselyte and a stranger for his name’s sake, and mercifully assisted me greatly in that affliction, because I was not entirely deserving of reproach. I pray God that they may not be found guilty of giving an occasion of sin. > > They found me after 30 years, and brought against me words that I had confessed before I was a deacon; from anxiety, with sorrow of mind, I told my dearest friend what I had done in my youth, in one day, nay, rather in one hour, because I was not then able to overcome. I know not, God knows, if I was then 15 years of age, and from my childhood I did not believe in the living God, but remained in death and unbelief until I was severely chastised, and, in truth, I have been humbled by hunger and nakedness. > > And even now I did not come to Ireland of my own will until I was nearly worn out. But this proved a blessing to me, for I was thus corrected by the Lord, and he made me fit to be today that which was once far from my thoughts, so that I should care for the salvation of others, for at that time I had no thought even for myself. > > And in the night of the day in which I was reproved for the things above mentioned, I saw in the night: I saw in a vision of the night a writing without honor before me. And then I heard an answer saying to me, “We have heard with displeasure the face of the elect without a name.” He did not say, “You have badly seen,” but “We have badly seen,” as if he had there joined himself to me, as he said: “He that touches you is as he who touches the apple of my eye.” Zc 2.8 > > Therefore I give thanks to Him who comforted me in all things that he did not hinder me from the journey which I had proposed, and also as regards my work which I had learned of Christ. But from this thing I felt no little strength, and my faith was approved before God and man. > > Therefore I dare to say that my conscience does not reproach me now or for the future. I have the testimony of God now that I have not lied in the words I have told you. > > But I feel the more grieved that my dearest friend, to whom I would have trusted even my life, should have occasioned this. And I learned from certain brethren that, before this defense, when I was not present, nor even in Britain, and with which I had nothing to do, that he defended me in my absence. He had even said to me with his own lips: “You are going to be given the rank of bishop,” though I was not worthy of it. How, then, did it happen to him that afterwards, before all persons, good and bad, he should detract me publicly, when he had before this freely and gladly praised me? And the LORD, who is greater than all? > > I have said enough. Still, I ought not to hide the gift of God which he gave me in the land of my captivity, for I sought him earnestly then, and found him there, and he preserved me from all iniquity, I believe, through the indwelling of his Spirit, who works within me unto this day more and more. But God knows, if it were man who spoke this to me, I would perhaps be silent for the love of Christ. > > Therefore I give unceasing thanks to my God, who preserved me faithful in the day of my temptation, so that I can today offer him sacrifice confidently—the living sacrifice of my soul to Christ my Lord, who preserved me from all my troubles, so that I may say to him: “Who am I, Lord? or what is my calling, that divine grace should have so wrought with me, so that today I can so rejoice amongst the nations, and magnify your name, wherever I am, not only in prosperity, but also in adversity?” And I ought to receive equally whatever happens to me, whether good or evil, giving God thanks in all things, who has shown me that I should, undoubtingly, without ceasing, believe in him who has heard me though I am ignorant, and that I should undertake, in those days, so holy and wonderful a work, and imitate those of whom our Lord predicted of old that they should preach his gospel to all nations for a testimony before the end of the world; Mt 24.14 which has been accomplished, as we have seen. Behold, we are witnesses that the gospel has been preached to the limits of human habitation. > > But it is too long to detail my labors particularly, or even partially. I will briefly say how the good God often delivered me from slavery and from 12 dangers by which my soul was threatened, besides many snares, and what in words I cannot express, and with which I will not trouble my readers. But God knows all things, even before they come to pass, as he does me, a poor creature. > > Therefore the divine voice very often admonished me to consider whence came this wisdom, which was not in me, who neither knew God nor the number of my days. Whence did I obtain afterwards the great and salutary gift to know or love God, and to leave my country and my relations. > > Although many gifts were offered to me with sorrow and tears, and I offended many of my seniors then against my will. But, guided by God, I yielded in no way to them—not to me, but to God be the glory, who conquered in me, and resisted them all; so that I came to the Irish people to preach the gospel, and bear with the injuries of the unbelieving, and listen to the reproach of being a stranger, and endure many persecutions, even to chains, and to give up my freedom for the benefit of others. And if I be worthy, I am ready to give up my life unhesitatingly and most cheerfully for his name, and thus, if the LORD permit, I desire to spend it even until my death. > > For I am truly a debtor to God, who has given me so much grace that many people should be born again to God through me, and that for them everywhere should be ordained priests for this people, newly come to the faith, which the LORD took from the ends of the earth, as he promised formerly by his prophets: “Our fathers falsely prepared idols, and there is no profit in them; to you the Gentiles come and will say.” Jr 16.19 And again: “I have set you to be the light of the Gentiles, that you may be for salvation unto the utmost parts of the earth.” Is 49.6 > > And thus I wait the promise of him who never fails, as he promises in the gospel: “They shall come from the east and the west [from the north and from the south], and shall sit down with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob.” vMt 8.11 So we believe that the faithful shall come from all parts of the world. > > Therefore we ought to fish well and diligently; as the Lord taught and said: “Come ye after me, and I will make you fishers of men.” Mk 1.17 And again: “Behold, saith the LORD, I send many fishers and many hunters,” Jr 16.16 etc. Therefore we should, by all means, set our nets in such a manner that a great multitude and a crowd may be caught therein for God, and that everywhere there may be priests who shall baptize and exhort a people who so need it and desire it; as the Lord teaches and admonishes in the gospel, saying: “Going, therefore, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, even to the consummation of the world.” Mt 28.19 And again: “Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature; he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be condemned.” Mk 16.15-16 And again: “This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a testimony to all nations, and then shall the consummation come.” Mt 24.14 And again, the LORD, speaking by the prophet, says: “And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith the Lord, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions. Moreover, upon my servants and handmaids in those days I will pour forth my spirit, and they shall prophesy.” Ac 2.17-18 And Hosea says: “And I will say to that which was not my people: ‘You are my people,’ and to her who has not found mercy; and they shall say, ‘You are my God.’ And in the place where I said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ it shall be said to them, ‘You are the sons of the living God.’” Ro 9.25-26 #### Chapter 5. > Wherefore behold how in Ireland they who never had the knowledge of God, and hitherto only worshipped unclean idols, have lately become the people of the LORD, and are called the sons of God. The sons of the Scoti and the daughters of princes are seen to be monks and virgins of Christ. > > And there was one blessed Irish maiden, of adult age, noble and very beautiful, whom I baptized, and after a few days she came to us for a reason, and gave us to understand that she had received a command from God, and was informed that she was to become a virgin of Christ, and to draw near to God. Thanks be to God, six days after this she most excellently and eagerly entered on this state of life, which all the virgins of God now adopt, even against the will of their parents, even enduring reproaches and persecution from them, and notwithstanding they increase in number; and as for those who are born again in this way, we know not their number, except the widows and those who observe continency. But those who are in slavery are most severely persecuted, yet they persevere in spite of terrors and threats. But the Lord has given grace to many of my handmaids, for they zealously imitate him as far as they are able. > > Therefore, though I could have wished to leave them, and had been ready and very desirous to go to Britannia, as if to my country and parents, and not that alone, but to go even to Gallia, to visit my brethren, and to see the face of my Lord’s saints; and God knows that I desired it greatly. But I am bound in the spirit, and he who witnesses will account me guilty if I do it, and I fear to lose the labor which I have commenced—and not I, but the Lord Christ, who commanded me to come and be with them for the rest of my life; if the Lord grants it, and keeps me from every evil way, that I should not sin before him. > > But I hope that which I am bound to do, but I trust not myself as long as I am in this body of death, for he is strong who daily tries to turn me from the faith, and from the sincere religious chastity to Christ my Lord, to which I have dedicated myself to the end of my life, but the flesh, which is in enmity, always draws me to death—that is, to unlawful desires, that must be unlawfully gratified—and I know in part that I have not led a perfect life like other believers. But I confess to my Lord, and do not blush before him, because I tell the truth, that from the time I knew him in my youth the love of God and his fear increased within me, and until now, by the favor of the LORD, I have kept the faith. > > Let him who pleases insult and laugh at me; I will not be silent, neither do I conceal the signs and wonders that the LORD has shown to me many years before they took place, as he who knew all things even before the world began. > > Therefore I ought to give thanks to God without ceasing, who often pardoned my uncalled-for folly and negligence, who did not let his anger turn fiercely against me, who allowed me to work with him, though I did not promptly follow what was shown me and what the Spirit suggested; and the Lord had compassion on me among thousands and thousands, because he saw my goodwill; but then I knew not what to do, because many were hindering my mission, and were talking behind my back, and saying: “Why does he run into danger among enemies who know not God?” This was not said with malice, but because they did not approve of it, but, as I now testify, because of my rusticity, you understand; and I did not at once recognize the grace which was then in me, but now I know I should have known before. > > Therefore I have simply related to my brethren and fellow-servants who have believed me why I have preached and still preach to strengthen and confirm your faith. Would that you also might aim at higher things and succeed better! This shall be my glory, because a wise son is the glory of his father. > > You know and God knows how I have lived among you from my youth up, both faithful in truth and sincere in heart; also, I have given the faith to the people among whom I dwell, and I will continue to do so. God knows I have not overreached any of them, nor do I think of it, because of God and his church, lest I should excite persecution for them and all of us, and lest the name of the Lord should be blasphemed through me; for it is written, “Woe to the man through whom the name of the Lord is blasphemed.” _Polycarp_ 10.3 > > For though I am unskilled in names, I have endeavored to be careful even with my Christian brethren, and the virgins of Christ, and devout women, who freely gave me gifts, and cast of their ornaments upon the altar; but I returned them, though they were offended with me because I did so. But I, for the hope of immortality, guarded myself cautiously in all things, so that they could not find me unfaithful, even in the smallest matter, so that unbelievers could not defame or detract from my ministry in the least. > > But when it happened that I baptized so many thousand men, did I expect even half a _screpall_ from them? Tell me, and I will return it to you. Or when the LORD ordained clergy through my humility and ministry, did I confer the grace gratuitously? If I asked of any of them even the value of my shoe, tell me, and I will repay you more. > > I rather spent for you as far as I was able; and among you and everywhere for you I endured many perils in distant places, where none had been further or had ever come to baptize, or ordain the clergy, or confirm the people. By the grace of the LORD I labored freely and diligently in all things for your salvation. > > At this time also I used to give rewards to kings, whose sons I hired, who traveled with me, and who understood nothing but to protect me and my companions. And on one day they wished to kill me; but the time had not come yet; but they put me in irons, and carried off all we possessed. But on the 14th day the LORD released me from their power, and what was ours was restored to us through God and through the friends we had before secured. > > You know how much I expended on the judges in the districts which I visited most frequently. For I think I paid them not less than the hire of 15 men, that you might have the benefit of my presence, and that I might always enjoy you in the LORD. I do not regret it, nor is it sufficient for me. I still spend, and will still spend, for your souls. > > Behold, I call God to witness on my soul that I do not lie, neither that you may have occasion, nor that I hope for honor from any of you; sufficient for me is the honor of truth. > > But I see that now in the present world I am greatly exalted by the LORD; and I was not worthy nor fit to be thus exalted, for I know that poverty and calamity are more suitable for me than riches and luxury. But even Christ the Lord was poor for us. Truly, I, a poor and miserable creature, even if I wished for wealth, have it not; neither do I judge myself, because I daily expect either death, or treachery, or slavery, or an occasion of some kind or another. But I fear none of these things, relying on the heavenly promise; for I have cast myself into the hands of the omnipotent God, who rules everywhere; as the prophet says: “Cast your care upon the LORD, and he shall sustain you.” Ps 55.22 > > Behold, now I commend my soul to my most faithful God, whose mission I perform, notwithstanding my unworthiness; but because he does not accept persons, and has chosen me for this office, to be one of the least of his ministers. > > “What shall I render to him for all the things that he hath rendered to me?” Ps 116.12 But what shall I say or promise to my LORD? For I see nothing unless he gives himself to me; but he searches the heart and reins, because I ardently desire and am ready that he should give me to drink his cup, as he has permitted others to do who have loved him. > > Wherefore may my LORD never permit me to lose his people whom he has gained in the ends of the earth. I pray God, therefore, that He may give me perseverance, and that He may vouchsafe to permit me to give him faithful testimony for my God until my death. > > And if I have done anything good for my God, whom I love, I beseech him to grant to me that with those proselytes and captives I may pour out my blood for his name, even if my body should be denied burial, and be miserably torn limb from limb by dogs or fierce beasts, or that the birds of heaven should devour it. I believe most certainly that if this should happen to me, I have gained both soul and body; for it is certain that we shall rise one day in the brightness of the sun—that is, the glory of Christ Jesus our redeemer—as sons of God but as joint heirs with Christ, and to become conformable to his image. > > For that sun which we see rises daily for us; but it will not rule or continue in its splendor for ever, and all who adore it shall suffer very miserably. But we who believe in and adore the true sun, Christ, who will never perish, neither he who shall do his will, but even as Christ shall abide for ever, who reigns with God the Father Almighty, and with the Holy Spirit, before the ages, and now, and for ever and ever. Amen. > > Behold, again and again, I shall briefly declare the words of my confession. I testify in truth and in joy of heart, before God and his holy angels, that I never had any occasion, except the gospel and its promises, for returning to that people from whom I had before with difficulty escaped. > > But I beseech those who believe in and fear God, whoever may condescend to look into or receive this writing, which Patrick, the ignorant sinner, has written in Ireland, that no one may ever say, if I have ever done or demonstrated anything, however little, that it was my ignorance. But do you judge, and let it be believed firmly, that it was the gift of God. And this is my confession before I die.

For #StPatricksDay, St. Patrick’s Confession. It’s a nice reminder Patrick was an actual guy… who probably wouldn’t approve of all the public intoxication, but would still love all those boisterous drunks in Jesus’s name.

https://www.christalmighty.net/2017/03/patrick.html

1 week ago 0 2 0 0
Original post on deacon.social

When Jesus was arrested and Simon Peter tried to stop the mob, Jesus pointed out he could’ve called down 12 legions of angels—but wasn’t gonna; this was gonna happen.

My dictionary defines a legion as 3 to 6 thousand troops; the number varied throughout Roman history. But in Jesus’s day a […]

1 week ago 0 2 0 0
Advertisement
Original post on deacon.social

When the mob comes to arrest Jesus in 𝘑𝘰𝘩𝘯 18, he asks whom they seek, and when they say “Jesus the Nazarene” he replies “Here I am”—and that “I ᴀᴍ” statement actually knocks them over for a moment. Then they brush it off and arrest him.

It only had a physical impact on ’em, not a spiritual one […]

2 weeks ago 0 1 0 0
Here’s how we know Christian nationalism isn’t actually Christian: It says yes to every single thing Satan tempted Jesus with.

Here’s how we know Christian nationalism isn’t actually Christian: It says yes to every single thing Satan tempted Jesus with.

If it doesn’t follow Jesus, it’s not his.

2 weeks ago 0 1 0 0
Original post on deacon.social

Every time the United States or Israel gets entangled in (or starts) a middle eastern war, #Armageddon comes up. So let’s sort out what the scriptures actually do say about it.

Like how it’s not actually a battle. There 𝘢𝘳𝘦 two End Times final battles, but we don’t know that either of them take […]

3 weeks ago 0 0 0 0
𝗧𝗲𝗻 𝗴𝘂𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗖𝗵𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝘃𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀

1. Do not confuse patriotism, national pride, and Western culture with Christian faith and practice.
2. Do not confuse secular political activity with the purpose of the church, nor campaigning with witnessing and preaching.
3. Do not make slanderous or false accusations against your opponents, but maintain your integrity. Do not consider a brother or sister who is of like precious faith an adversary if he or she holds a different political view.
4. At all times endeavor to verify information before accepting it as true or before repeating it to others.
5. At all times endeavor to know and understand the candidate’s positions and evaluate him or her on that basis, on the basis of his or her ability to perform the duties and functions of the office, and his or her integrity.
6. At all times endeavor to know and understand the issues; do not excuse yourself from this duty by saying, “God will show me whom to vote for.”
7. At all times compare a candidate’s position with Scripture but only where the Scripture addresses the issue; do not force Scripture to address issues that the Author did not intend it to address.
8. Neither vote nor work for a candidate merely because he or she professes to be of the Christian faith.
9. Do not neglect your family, worship, prayer, or Bible study.
10. At all times uphold your leaders in prayer.

—𝘗𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘭 𝘌𝘷𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘭, 10/14/1984

𝗧𝗲𝗻 𝗴𝘂𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗖𝗵𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝘃𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀 1. Do not confuse patriotism, national pride, and Western culture with Christian faith and practice. 2. Do not confuse secular political activity with the purpose of the church, nor campaigning with witnessing and preaching. 3. Do not make slanderous or false accusations against your opponents, but maintain your integrity. Do not consider a brother or sister who is of like precious faith an adversary if he or she holds a different political view. 4. At all times endeavor to verify information before accepting it as true or before repeating it to others. 5. At all times endeavor to know and understand the candidate’s positions and evaluate him or her on that basis, on the basis of his or her ability to perform the duties and functions of the office, and his or her integrity. 6. At all times endeavor to know and understand the issues; do not excuse yourself from this duty by saying, “God will show me whom to vote for.” 7. At all times compare a candidate’s position with Scripture but only where the Scripture addresses the issue; do not force Scripture to address issues that the Author did not intend it to address. 8. Neither vote nor work for a candidate merely because he or she professes to be of the Christian faith. 9. Do not neglect your family, worship, prayer, or Bible study. 10. At all times uphold your leaders in prayer. —𝘗𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘭 𝘌𝘷𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘭, 10/14/1984

Back when Ronald Reagan and Walter Mondale were running for president, the 𝘗𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘭 𝘌𝘷𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘭 ran this. It’s still very good advice. It’s not how Christian nationalists behave though.

3 weeks ago 0 2 0 0
We Christians may sing about how there is a fountain filled with blood, but I’m still waiting for a church to actually build one.

We Christians may sing about how there is a fountain filled with blood, but I’m still waiting for a church to actually build one.

Admittedly, we Christians are often all talk and no action.

3 weeks ago 0 1 0 0
Preview
The legality of Jesus’s trial. When you read the gospel of _John_ , but skip the other three synoptic gospels, y’might get the idea Jesus never even _had_ a trial. In _John_ : * Jesus gets arrested. * He’s taken right to the former head priest Annas’s house for an unofficial trial. * From there, to Joseph Caiaphas’s house for interrogation. * Then to Pontius Pilate’s prætorium for interrogation. * Then to Golgotha for crucifixion. No conviction, no sentence; just interviews followed by execution. Same as would be done in any country with no formal judicial system: They catch you, they interrogate you, they free or shoot you. But both Judea and Rome _did_ have a formal system. _John_ doesn’t show it because the other gospels do. _John_ was written to fill in the gaps in the other gospels’ stories—which include Jesus’s formal trials. There were two: The one before the Judean senate, and the other before the Roman prætor. The senate, presided over by head priest Caiaphas, found Jesus guilty of blasphemy and sedition. In contrast Pilate publicly stated he didn’t find Jesus guilty of anything—but he didn’t care enough to free him, and sent Jesus to his death all the same. _Is_ Jesus guilty of blasphemy? Only if he isn’t actually the Son of Man, and of course the senate absolutely refused to believe that’s who he is. But Jesus actually _is_ guilty of sedition. I know, I know: Christians wanna insist Jesus is absolutely innocent. He never sinned y’know. But this “sedition” has nothing to do with sin against God and the Law of Moses. It has to do with human laws, Roman laws. Jesus is the legitimate Messiah, the king of Israel and Judea, anointed by God to rule that nation and the world. He’s Lord; he’s the Lord of lords. And that’s a threat to everyone who figures _they’re_ lord—particularly the lords of Israel at that time. To Caiaphas, Herod, and Cæsar Tiberius, “Jesus is Lord” is sedition. To leadership today it still is. Many of them don’t realize this, ’cause they don’t think of Jesus as any threat to their power. Especially after they neuter him, by convincing his supporters he’d _totally_ vote for them and their party—and his so-called followers buy it, and follow their parties instead of Jesus. So it stands to reason our leadership isn’t worried about Jesus. Yet. But in the year 33, Jesus was tangibly standing on the earth, in a real position to upend the status quo. He was therefore a real threat to the lords of Israel at the time—whether we’re talking emperors, prefects, tetrarchs, senators, synagogue presidents, or scribes who were used to everyone following _their_ spins on the scriptures. To all these folks, Jesus was competition who needed to be crushed. Following Jesus instead of these other lords: Sedition. Totally sedition. Flagrant, indefensible sedition. But it’s _not_ against God’s Law. It’s only against human customs, so Jesus isn’t guilty of sin in God’s eyes; still totally sinless. Relax. Thing is, Christians don’t wanna think of Jesus as guilty of _anything_. We wanna defend him against everything. We don’t wanna think of his conviction and trials as valid. We don’t wanna imagine his execution was a function of a corrupt system; worse, that perhaps our own existing systems are _just as corrupt_ , and if his first coming had taken place today, we’d’ve killed him too. Nor do we wanna recognize sentencing him to death is in any way parallel to the way _we_ depose him as the master of our lives, and prioritize other things over him. We don’t wanna think of his trial as a miscarriage of justice; we’d rather imagine it as _illegal_. This is why, every Easter, you’re gonna hear various Christians claim Jesus’s trial _wasn’t_ legal. That the Judeans had broken all their own laws in order to arrest him and hold his trial at night, get him to testify against himself, and get him killed before anyone might find out what they were up to. It certainly _feels_ illegal: If you ever heard of a suspect arrested at midnight, tried and convicted at 2AM, and hastily executed by noon, doesn’t the whole thing smell mighty fishy? #### Jesus’s claim to the throne. First of all, Christians make a big to-do about Jesus’s lineage. We have his family trees, y’know. They contradict one another, but where they _do_ line up, they agree Jesus is a direct descendant of David ben Jesse, the third king of Israel. Therefore Jesus is the “son of David,” the legitimate heir to David’s throne, the _rightful_ king of Israel. Not the Hasmoneans, not the Herods; _definitely_ not the Cæsars, who weren’t even Hebrew. Okay. First of all, all this stuff about heredity is nonsense. If you’ve ever read the Old Testament, you’ll remember David ben Jesse wasn’t the descendant of kings; he was the descendant of whores and foreigners. Same with his predecessor Saul ben Kish, the descendant of rapists. The throne of Israel was _new_. There were no dynasties to draw royalty from, so these guys became king because _the L ORD chose them_. And later in the bible he chose other kings who likewise had no hereditary claim to the throne: Jeroboam ben Nabat, and Jehu ben Nimshi. It’s only _human custom_ (and the claims of kings and nobles, obviously) which insists heredity makes one a king. The scriptures teach otherwise: _God_ anoints leaders. So Jesus didn’t have to be descended from _anybody_ to be king. Simon Maccabee wasn’t. Herod Antipater wasn’t. Cæsar Augustus (even though he called himself _divi filius_ , “son of God” because the Roman senate had declared his adoptive father Julius Cæsar a god) wasn’t. And debatably even Jesus wasn’t. Go look at his two genealogies again, and notice both of them link Jesus to David through his adoptive father Joseph. (I realize popular Christian culture insists one of these genealogies belongs to Jesus’s mother, but the _scriptures_ say no such thing. Go ahead, read ’em again. I’ll wait.) The genealogies actually _don’t_ prove Jesus’s heredity. They prove the heredity of his _earthly father_ —and since Jesus was adopted into that family, it totally counts the same as if he were born into it. Still: Some people are _way_ too hung up on bloodlines. So I figured I’d deal with them first. Secondly even _if_ Jesus is the scion of the house of David, that house was _overthrown_. Nabúkhudurriuchur binu Nabúaplauchur of Babylon deposed the last Davidite king nearly six centuries before. Other than Zerubbabel ben Shealtiel, the Davidites hadn’t ruled since. When the monarchy was reestablished, it was by the Hasmonean head priests, not the Davidites. And _they_ were overthrown by Herod; and the Herods were overthrown by Cæsar while Jesus was still a little boy. So. Imagine the current, most direct descendant of Louis 17 declaring _he_ should be ruling France instead of the Fifth Republic. We’d laugh it off. Yet the Bourbons were ruling France far more recently than the Davidites had ruled Jerusalem in Jesus’s day. The people of Jesus’s day would laugh off any such claim too. So why’d they take all the “son of David” statements so seriously? Because according to Pharisee interpretations of the End Times, a son of David would take over the world—and if people really believed Jesus to be this son of David person, he could easily lead an insurrection. It was more about stopping zealots from running amok, than any real fears Jesus would take over Judea. #### “Chapter and verse, please.” All my life I’ve heard this claim: “It was illegal to try cases at night.” Supposedly the Judeans had a law which forbade any legal activity, any binding decisions, from being made at any time other than in the daylight, when members of the public could come in, observe the proceedings, and keep leadership accountable. Okay. Where in the bible does it state this? See, if the Judeans had any law, any _actual_ law, they’d’ve got it from _bible_. Same bible we have. It’s the only legal code they were permitted: The commands handed down from the LORD to Moses in Torah. The Judeans weren’t permitted to create new ones. Unlike _our_ senates, the Judean senate wasn’t a lawmaking body, and never dared presume they could create laws; only the LORD can make laws. All they might do was rule whether something was consistent with God’s Law, or not. They weren’t a legislative body. Properly they were a _judicial_ one. Now yeah, our judges don’t make laws, but they do interpret ’em in all sorts of imaginative ways, and sometimes their rulings have all the effect of new laws. The Judeans could do the very same—and absolutely did. They could twist the Law, warp it, and create loopholes in it. Pharisees totally did. To a degree, they could also enforce their interpretations of the Law. But what they weren’t permitted to do was invent _new_ laws. And “Thou shalt not try cases at night” is absolutely a new law. Can’t extrapolate it from bible. So no, it’s not in the bible. There’s no proof text for it. Can’t extrapolate it from any other verse in the Old Testament either. The proper response to anyone who claims, “It was illegal for them to…” is “Where do we find that law in the bible? Chapter and verse please.” Some preachers will totally admit it’s not bible, but claim there were certain nonbiblical “laws” which Pharisees followed same as the Law: The “oral Law,” passed down from Pharisee to Pharisee _orally_ , instead of written down in the scriptures. “True, it’s not found chapter-and-verse in the bible, but it’s definitely part of Pharisee tradition.” And yes, such oral traditions totally did exist; we have a copy of them in the Talmud, called the Mishna. But okay, that’s Pharisee custom. Who ran the Judean senate? Wasn’t Pharisees. The head priest was president of the senate. He ran the meetings, appointed the officers (usually choosing his family members), and made the final rulings. Was the head priest a Pharisee? Nope; he was Sadducee. Same as all the head priests since King John Hyrcanus quit the Pharisees in the second century BC. Sadducees didn’t follow Pharisee traditions at _all_. Heck, Sadducee bibles have only five books in them, same as Samaritans; our first five. And since Sadducees didn’t believe in angels, Ac 23.8 we’re not really talking about people who _believed_ their bibles. So even if the bible _did_ forbid nighttime cases, which it doesn’t, the head priest might ignore it if it suited him. And he certainly wouldn’t acknowledge Pharisee “oral Laws” as valid— _especially_ when they got in his way. Yep, you can find passages in the Mishna which forbid nighttime trials. But the Mishna ain’t Law. It’s a second-century Pharisee collection of traditions and “oral Laws.” It’s nothing a Sadducee would follow if he didn’t care to. Its passages might not even have been written in Jesus’s day. They might’ve originated a century after his trial, after someone whom Pharisees _didn’t_ want dead, was convicted in a nighttime trial before they could put a stop to it. It’s not even proof Jesus’s trial was _uncustomary_ : We don’t ban actions unless people have already done it! And possibly done it a _lot_. So these preachers who claim Jesus’s nighttime trial was illegal: They’re just quoting _other_ preachers who claim Jesus’s nighttime trial was illegal. They never investigated whether the other preachers were correct. It _feels_ correct, so that’ll do them. #### Other “illegal” behaviors. Here are some other claims preachers like to make—and nope, they’re neither biblical nor historical. “It was illegal to sentence a convict on the same day as the trial.” Again, there’s no such law in the bible. In fact, if a man wanted to invalidate his woman’s oath, he didn’t _get_ a day to think about it; if he waited, it meant her oath stood. Nu 30.5-14 Pharisee custom might’ve given their judges a day to deliberate, but I remind you the head priest was no Pharisee. “It was illegal to try someone the day before sabbath.” This claim is based on the previous claim: If you can’t sentence a convict till the day after the trial, and that next day is sabbath, supposedly this rules out any Friday trials. (What, you can’t skip a day and sentence ’em Sunday?) But again: This is Pharisee custom. Not Law. “It was illegal to recruit witnesses.” Well, it’s illegal to _invent_ witnesses, instead of calling upon people who actually did witness something. But that’s not what happened in Jesus’s trial. It looks like the witnesses actually did see Jesus do and say stuff, ’cause he totally _did_ say something about knocking the temple down. The problem is their stories contradicted one another. Mk 14.56 If the witnesses had been properly coached, this shouldn’t have happened. (Hastily coached, maybe. But lots of people are quick studies.) “It was illegal to accept the testimony of false witnesses.” Okay yes; if your witnesses commit perjury, the Law declares their testimony invalid, and says they need to suffer the same penalty as they were trying to inflict on the defendant. Dt 19.19 If they were trying to get Jesus killed, it meant _they_ should be killed. But once the witnesses to Jesus contradicted one another, there’s no evidence the senate accepted their testimonies; there’s every indication they couldn’t and didn’t. They didn’t convict Jesus on any testimony but his own. “It was illegal to make Jesus testify against himself.” It’s illegal in the United States, but it wasn’t in ancient Israel. The bible has a number of instances of self-incrimination. Joshua obligated Achan ben Kharmi to testify against himself, Js 7.19 and Eli squeezed Samuel into sharing everything the LORD told him. 1Sa 3.17 The right against self-incrimination is an American invention, not a biblical one. “It was illegal to convict on only one witness’s testimony; Jesus _and_ someone else had to testify.” This is a warping of the Law’s ban against convicting on a single testimony. Dt 19.15 Obviously when a person confesses, that’s plenty enough to convict. Achan was executed for what he confessed, Js 7.20-25 as was the Amalekite who claimed to kill Saul ben Kish. 2Sa 1.15-16 Self-incrimination is still incrimination. “It was illegal for the judges to be biased against the defendant.” Not only does the Law never make such a requirement, it’s kinda _impossible_ to make such a requirement. Everybody’s biased. (Even God; he’s totally anti-sin.) Certainly if you were the judge in a trial against a mass murderer, and he killed lots of your friends, you’re gonna personally want him dead. But the LORD did require judges to be _just_ , Dt 16.18 and biased or not, their rulings had to reflect a truthful understanding of the Law, the circumstances, and guilt. Whether this happened in Jesus’s trial is _debatable_ —and if we think it’s not, that’s only proof of _our_ bias. “It was illegal to convict on anything but a unanimous verdict.” Because _Luke_ comments Joseph of Arimathea didn’t agree to convict Jesus, Lk 23.50-51 we know this wasn’t a unanimous vote. It may sound that way in other passages, Lk 22.71 but ’tain’t so. The popular claim that it _had_ to be a unanimous vote comes from _American_ custom: Our murder trials require a unanimous vote. But ancient middle easterners didn’t do jury trials; that’s a western thing. The Judean senate wasn’t the jury in Jesus’s trial; they were witnesses to the trial and nothing more. The judge ruled. That’d be the head priest: His decision functioned as the official senate decision. The Mishna changed this procedure centuries later, and even retroactively claimed the chief Pharisee in the senate was _really_ ancient Judea’s senate president. But it doesn’t accurately describe the procedure of Jesus’s day—as shown in the gospels. #### Totally legal trial. Not all that ethical, though. So yeah, Jesus’s trial fulfilled the letter of the Law… but it killed a righteous man, who never violated God’s Law, and was only guilty of declaring who he really is to a roomful of unbelievers. It’s a textbook miscarriage of justice. That’s not good enough for many Christians. They much prefer the idea this was an illegal trial; that “the Pharisees” hated Jesus so much, they thought nothing of tossing aside their own rules to get him killed. It makes ’em look like massive hypocrites, who claimed to be all about law-’n-order yet were really about power. They’re already perceived to be the bad guys in the Jesus story, so this makes ’em exceptionally bad. But that’s not historically accurate. The Judeans didn’t break any rules to convict Jesus. They _followed_ the rules—knowing _just_ how to manipulate ’em in ways which got them what they wanted. They’d been jumping through loopholes all their lives. And we do the very same things with our own procedures and standards. We know how to violate the spirit of every institution; we do it all the time. Corrupt humanity can corrupt anything. We do it every time we quote bible out of context. We even corrupt the LORD’s commands, Jesus’s teachings, and the Holy Spirit’s guidance. That’s why we have to follow the spirit of the Law _more so_ than its letter; to follow God’s intent instead of merely his words. To produce his fruit. To settle for nothing less.

Around Eastertime, plenty of Christians love to claim Jesus’s trial was illegal. Was it a miscarriage of justice?—absolutely. Was it legal?—unfortunately yes, and I debunk a number of those claims as to why not.

https://www.christalmighty.net/2020/03/trial.html

3 weeks ago 0 1 0 0
Original post on deacon.social

When Jesus said of an evil spirit, “This sort only comes out through prayer,” he didn’t mean prayer at that moment; he meant his followers, we Christians, oughta already have a lifestyle of prayer, and know our Father instead of merely knowing of him. True for those of us literally fighting evil […]

3 weeks ago 0 1 0 0
Advertisement
Original post on deacon.social

Romans 14 is often described as the “freedom in Christ” chapter, because in it we find the idea that if an action doesn’t violate our conscience, we’re free to do it. But when we actually read it, we find it’s actually an instruction to limit that freedom when it violates the consciences of […]

3 weeks ago 0 1 0 0
Original post on deacon.social

I guarantee you some #prophets are gonna stand up in church this morning to tell you what God’s doing through the #IranWar. And my response, and really all our responses, should be, “The Lᴏʀᴅ knew this was coming. Why didn’t he forewarn you? And if he 𝘥𝘪𝘥 forewarn you, why did you sit on this […]

4 weeks ago 0 1 0 0
Preview
The Good News Translation. My very first bible was a King James Version, which I read cover to cover… but didn’t wholly _understand_ , ’cause I was seven and didn’t have the vocabulary. My second bible was one of my mother’s cast-off bibles—a Good News Bible she didn’t use anymore, now that she had a Scofield Reference Bible—and this one I _did_ understand. Because, as should be true of every bible translation, it was _meant_ to be understood. This translation has gone through a few different names over the years. Its publishers have always referred to the text as Today’s English Version (TEV), but when its New Testament was first published in 1966, it was _Good News for Modern Man: The New Testament in Today’s English_. People came to call it the Good News Bible (GNB), which was its unofficial name till 2001, when it was officially named the Good News Translation (GNT) to emphasize the fact it’s a _translation_ , not a paraphrase. People will still use _all_ these names to refer to it… though GNT is a little confusing for some, ’cause that’s a common abbreviation for the Greek New Testament. But it’s pretty easy to figure out whenever you’re talking about an English-language bible named the GNT, it’s obviously the Good News Translation; and when you’re talking about a Greek-language bible named the GNT, it’s obviously not. It began with an inquiry: The Southern Baptist Home Missions Board sent a letter to the American Bible Society, wanting to know what’d be the best bible translation for someone whose first language wasn’t English. The ABS took it seriously, reviewed the current bibles on the market, and realized none of them were all _that_ readable by non-native speakers. So… it was time to create one. That task fell to ABS’s New Testament consultant and Greek specialist, Dr. Robert Bratcher (1920–2010), who translated the New Testament from 1962 to 1965. He borrowed a wordlist from the U.S. Information Agency, which regularly simplified U.S. Foreign Service documents into a vocabulary of less than 3,000 words. As a former missionary to Brazil, he practiced the same translation technique as Portuguese-English translators commonly do: dynamic equivalence, where you translate idea-for-idea into the natural speech of the target language, instead of so literally you risk a misunderstanding. A committee of five colleagues reviewed Bratcher’s work as he went, and offered suggestions and edits. _Mark_ was published as a test case in 1964, titled _The Right Time: Mark’s Story About Jesus,_ with illustrations from Swiss artist Annie Vallotton. It got enough feedback for the ABS to go ahead with the New Testament, which was completed and published in 1966, in an inexpensive 25¢ paperback edition. It sold out quickly. So did its reprint. The price didn’t actually cover production costs, so the ABS had to raise the price to 50¢. But it kept selling—in the millions. Big success, but of course not without criticism. Many people _hated_ the idea of a bible in informal English. _Hated_ the fact Bratcher interpreted their favorite idioms and metaphors of the New Testament; _they_ wanted to do that for themselves. (And interpret ’em incorrectly, but in ways they personally preferred. That’s mostly why.) Fr’instance Bratcher considered αἷμα/_éma_ , “blood,” a metaphor for death—which it often is—and translated it that way in six different instances. But plenty of Christians _love_ to preach on the precious blood of Jesus, _really want_ that word “blood” in their bibles, and were outraged when they couldn’t find it in the verses where they wanted it. Regardless, _Good News for Modern Man_ was popular enough for the ABS to tackle the Old Testament, which they eventually published in 1976. #### And here’s where things get messy. Since Robert Bratcher’s specialty was Greek, he moved into an advisory position while a committee of Hebrew and Syriac scholars worked on the actual translation from 1970 to 1974: Roger Bullard, Herbert G. Grether, John Thompson, Keith R. Crim; Heber Peacock and Barclay Newman from the United Bible Societies; and Brynmore Price from the British and Foreign Bible Society (who made sure the text wasn’t too American-sounding for other English-speakers to understand). Portions were published once the translators were done with ’em: > 1. _The Psalms for Modern Man in Today’s English Version._ > 2. _Tried and True: Job for Modern Man._ > 3. _Wisdom for Modern Man: Proverbs and Ecclesiastes._ > 4. _Jonah, the Man Who Said “No!”_ > 5. _Ruth._ > 6. _Justice Now! Hosea, Amos, Micah._ > 7. _Exodus: “Let My People Go.”_ > Problem was, this committee had to deal with a _lot_ of interference from the ABS, which had bowed to pressure from the Good News Bible’s critics. They didn’t want to alienate potential customers, so they sought pre-approval from conservative Evangelical denominations, like the Evangelical Free Church and the Assemblies of God. A number of these Evangelical leaders sometimes objected, not on _linguistic_ grounds, but on _theological_ grounds: They wanted the text to support their beliefs. They had pages of issues where they refused to accept the translators’ judgment, and refused to compromise. Young-earth creationists especially, who _really_ didn’t like what they felt the GNB translators were doing to _Genesis_. Others felt the translators were nullifying certain New Testament ideas by translating the Old Testament in a way which wasn’t obviously compatible with the way the apostles had interpreted those OT passages. Like when _Isaiah_ says “a young woman who is pregnant will have a son and will name him ‘Immanuel.’ ” Is 7.14 GNT which doesn’t make the virgin conception and birth of Jesus super obvious like they wanted. They wanted something more like the 1978 NIV’s “The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.” Or even the current NIV’s “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son…” which _added words to the text_ to keep conservatives happy. Anyway, the translators pushed right back: They felt these alterations were “a perversion of the clear meaning of the text,” as Peacock put it, “a perversion of Scripture to force Genesis to say what the New Testament or some segment of the church says”—and a risk to the translation, because if the general public got the idea the GNT was a “Fundamentalist bible,” you might have even _greater_ segments of the church refusing to use it. But because the ABS sided with the conservatives and demanded their changes, the translators voted to resign _en masse_ in 1975, and asked that their names not be published with the new bible. The ABS made most of the alterations the conservatives demanded, and tucked the translators’ choices in the footnotes. Then published the Old Testament in 1976, and eventually the apocrypha in 1979. It didn’t make as big an impact as the publication of _Good News for Modern Man_. Partly that’s because of marketing; partly because Zondervan was pushing its brand-new New International Version _hard_. The NIV New Testament had been published in 1973, and the entire bible would later come out in 1978, and _that_ quickly became the preferred bible of Evangelical conservatives. I bought my first NIV in 1985, and it became my go-to translation for the next decade. About a decade after the full GNT was published, Barclay Newman conducted some studies about then-contemporary English, and tried re-translating certain books of the New Testament for the ABS to eventually publish: > 1. _Luke._ > 2. _Acts._ > 3. _A Few Who Dared to Trust God_ (various Old Testament stories). > 4. _A Book About Jesus_ (various stories from the gospels). > These were developed into the Contemporary English Version, whose New Testament was published in 1991, Old Testament in 1995, and apocrypha in 1999. The CEV is not an update of the GNT; it’s actually meant for an even _lower_ reading level than the GNT. But it, like the GNT, is meant to be in understandable present-day English. The American Bible Society still publishes both the GNT and CEV, and yes they’re both on Bible Gateway. Both mighty useful translations. The GNT is still one of the most popular bible translations in the United Kingdom, and was updated in 1992 to be more gender inclusive. In fact whenever the United Bible Societies and SIL Global offer examples of how to dynamically translate the bible, they regularly quote the GNT. Yep, even though there are other bibles out there which are translated this way. The GNT is, after all, one of the first bibles to do this, and do it well. So it’s a useful example for other bible translators—particularly those who are translating the bible into a language which doesn’t yet have a bible translation.

My first bible was a KJV, but I was a kid and couldn’t understand it as well as one should. My second was a Good News Bible, nowadays called the #GoodNewsTranslation. Much easier to understand—which was its point.

So I wrote an article about it.

https://www.christalmighty.net/2026/02/gnt.html

1 month ago 0 1 0 0
Original post on deacon.social

Nobody appreciates a #judgmental Christian; not even other judgmental Christians. Being judgmental immediately and rightly identifies us as jerks, and undermines every good deed we do.

Christians should instead be known for our justice, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit. [Ro 14.17] […]

1 month ago 0 1 0 0
Original post on deacon.social

For #Lent I usually write about the #StationsOfTheCross; namely the stations St. John Paul came up with, which come from the #gospels. I realize a lot of Evangelicals dismiss them as “a Catholic thing,” but be fair—if we invented them, they’d be 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 Evangelicals worship. With oodles of […]

1 month ago 0 1 0 0
Original post on deacon.social

On day 3, the Lᴏʀᴅ created seas and the dry land, then had plants sprout all over it, and spread their seeds around.

This is before he created the sun on day 4, but bear in mind 𝘎𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘴 1 isn’t meant to be taken literally. The point is the Lᴏʀᴅ created this stuff, unlike pagan gods who simply […]

1 month ago 0 1 0 0
Original post on deacon.social

Paul’s general theme in #Romans14 is if your religious practices draw you closer to Jesus, keep doing them, don’t judge those who don’t do likewise—and the rest of us shouldn’t condemn them either. It’s all about following Jesus better, not defying one’s own conscience, and not rejecting fellow […]

1 month ago 1 1 0 0
Original post on deacon.social

Jesus’s story about throwing a dinner party for the poor and disabled [Lk 14.12-15] tends to get skipped, ’cause his Dinner Party Story [Lk 14.15-24] includes the idea. Also tends to go unheeded, ’cause when’s the last time 𝘺𝘰𝘶 threw a dinner party and invited people who can’t reciprocate? […]

1 month ago 0 1 0 0
Original post on deacon.social

When Simon Peter writes in his first letter about suffering for Christ, he’s not talking about persecution, nor suffering in general—don’t start depriving yourself of 𝘢𝘯𝘺 comforts, but 𝘧𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘩𝘭𝘺 ones, the things that’ll corrupt and eventually destroy us […]

2 months ago 0 1 0 0
Advertisement
Original post on deacon.social

During sabbath dinner at a leading Pharisee’s house, surrounded by Pharisees and lawyers, Jesus encountered a man who needed healing, so he posed a question for the room: “Can one cure on sabbath or not?” And in a room full of experts, somehow, suddenly, 𝘯𝘰 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘰𝘯.

Yep, it was a […]

2 months ago 0 1 0 0
Preview
The Feast of Peter’s Confession. Today, 18 January, is a feast day for Anglicans, Lutherans, and Orthodox Christians, held in memory of when Simon Peter first publicly identified as Messiah. Weirdly, _not_ Roman Catholics, even though they’re huge fans of St. Peter, whom they consider the first pope. They’re the ones who started the feast too. It was part of their Feast of St. Peter’s Chair—which honors, as the title plainly states, St. Peter’s chair. His literal chair. (But probably not—unless they swapped out broken parts of it until it was _all_ swapped, Ship of Theseus style. The oldest parts of it date from the 500s.) It’s big, it’s wooden; they’ve got it in a place of honor in the Vatican. They think Peter sat on it when he ran the Roman church. Catholics moved that feast to 22 February, and dropped the Feast of the Confession, and celebrate his confession along with his chair. After all the _chair_ didn’t confess anything. The other liturgical churches kept the Feast of the Confession where it is, and celebrate it then. If you’ve read the gospels, you know the story. Here’s the _Matthew_ version of it. _Matthew_ 16.13-20 GNT 13Jesus went to the territory near the town of Cæsarea Philippi, where he asked his disciples, _“Who do people say the Son of Man is?”_ 14“Some say John the Baptist,” they answered. “Others say Elijah, while others say Jeremiah or some other prophet.” 15 _“What about you?”_ he asked them. _“Who do you say I am?”_ 16Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 17 _“Good for you, Simon son of John!”_ answered Jesus. _“For this truth did not come to you from any human being, but it was given to you directly by my Father in heaven. 18And so I tell you, Peter: you are a rock, and on this rock foundation I will build my church, and not even death will ever be able to overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven; what you prohibit on earth will be prohibited in heaven, and what you permit on earth will be permitted in heaven.”_ 20Then Jesus ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah. These events took place near Cæsarea-Philippi, yet another one of the cities named for the Cæsars, but also named for Herod Philip, tetrarch of the Dekapolis, who founded it. (It’s now called Banias. It’s one of the sources of the Jordan River.) At the time Jesus and his Twelve were in the Dekapolis, which was largely populated by Syrian Greeks, who were less likely to recognize Jesus and his kids: Nobody would know their cultural background, nor what a Messiah is. So it was kind of a safe space for Peter to come right out and say Jesus is Messiah. Even so, Jesus shushed them and told them not to repeat this. In their culture “Messiah” means king. If you claim you’re the king, anybody else who’s using or who covets the title, might object. Especially when you have a really good claim to the title, as Jesus does. #### And how this statement makes Peter a big deal. As you may know, Roman Catholics take Jesus’s statement to Peter, and use it as the basis of the papacy. If Peter was granted the keys to God’s kingdom, it implies he’s in charge of who gets in. It’s why, when people tell stories about people dying and going to heaven, St. Peter is guarding the Pearly Gates of New Jerusalem, Rv 21.21 screening everyone. Once Peter relocated to Rome, and became the leader of _that_ church, he supposedly brought that authority with him. When he was crucified and succeeded by Linus Herculanus (the Linus from _2 Timothy_ 4.21), supposedly that authority and those keys passed down to Linus. When Linus died and was succeeded by Anacletus, supposedly _he_ got the authority and the keys; and so on to Clement, and all the way down to Leo 14. Catholics insist all these guys inherited Peter’s keys, by virtue of inheriting Peter’s office. I would remind you, however, the popes were elected by men, not Jesus. True, men who figured they were following Jesus, and many of ’em were… but you might recall there were some profoundly awful popes in Christian history, and it’s a safe bet _those_ guys were neither devout Jesus-followers, nor elected by devout Jesus-followers. If the keys were getting passed from pope to pope, it’s also a safe bet one of those popes dropped the keys along the road. Heck, they might still be in Avignon. I’ve heard various Christians claim when Jesus told Peter, “I will give you the keys to the kingdom,” it was a plural you; it really means every Christian. Nope. That’s not what σοι/_si_ , “to you¹,” means. Jesus only granted those keys, at that time, to Peter. But Jesus also says this to his followers: _Matthew_ 18.18-20 GNT 18 _“And so I tell all of you: what you prohibit on earth will be prohibited in heaven, and what you permit on earth will be permitted in heaven._ 19 _“And I tell you more: whenever two of you on earth agree about anything you pray for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. 20For where two or three come together in my name, I am there with them.”_ It sounds mighty similar to when Jesus told Peter whatever he permits and prohibits on earth counts in heaven. Sounds a lot like Jesus _does_ grant his kingdom’s keys to all his followers. Which only makes sense; we inherit this kingdom same as Jesus, right? We can debatably make the claim Jesus grants them to every Christian who confesses Jesus in the very same way as Peter. But enough about that. Today’s Christians use the day as the beginning of an eight-day “week” of prayer, from the 18th to the Feast of Paul’s Conversion on the 25th. The week is dedicated to Christian unity—to Jesus’s prayer that all his followers would be one, rather than separate. Jn 17.21 It’s not so much about Protestants and Orthodox joining the Catholics; it’s about every Christian working together with every other Christian, regardless of church and tradition; and all of us following our Lord together.

Today is the Feast of Peter’s Confession—when Simon Peter first told Jesus, “You are Messiah,” and Jesus blessed him for it.

https://www.christalmighty.net/2026/01/confession.html

2 months ago 0 0 0 0
Original post on sfba.social

🎵 Little baby
𝘱𝘢-𝘳𝘶𝘮-𝘱𝘶𝘮-𝘱𝘶𝘮-𝘱𝘶𝘮
🎵 I am a poor boy too
𝘱𝘢-𝘳𝘶𝘮-𝘱𝘶𝘮-𝘱𝘶𝘮-𝘱𝘶𝘮
🎵 I have no gift to bring
𝘱𝘢-𝘳𝘶𝘮-𝘱𝘶𝘮-𝘱𝘶𝘮-𝘱𝘶𝘮
🎵 That’s fit to give our King
𝘱𝘢-𝘳𝘶𝘮-𝘱𝘶𝘮-𝘱𝘶𝘮-𝘱𝘶𝘮, etc.
🎵 “Shall I play for you?”
𝘱𝘢-𝘳𝘶𝘮-𝘱𝘶𝘮-𝘱𝘶𝘮-𝘱𝘶𝘮, etc.

🎵 Mary shook her head
𝘱𝘢-𝘳𝘶𝘮-𝘱𝘶𝘮-𝘱𝘶𝘮-𝘱𝘶𝘮
🎵 “You do it and you’re dead” […]

3 months ago 0 1 0 0
Original post on deacon.social

Job once referred to his redeemer, whom we Christians nowadays recognize to be God; and how Job would one day see him, 𝘢𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘳 he’d perished and turned to dust. Yep, sure sounds like resurrection.

And since our resurrection happens at the second advent, seems like a good passage to study for […]

3 months ago 0 1 0 0
Preview
Dem bones. #### Ezekiel 37.1-10. You’re likely thinking, “How is an _Ezekiel_ passage a scripture for advent? Well, the passage is about resurrection, and resurrection takes place at the second coming of Christ Jesus. _Ezekiel_ is the first time the LORD explicitly shows a resurrection to someone—in the Valley of Dry Bones Story. The title of this article comes from the gospel song, “Dem Bones.” Most people have no idea it’s a spiritual, ’cause all they know is, “Ankle bone connected to the shin bone, shin bone connected to the knee bone…” They think it’s about anatomy. Or skeletons. Well anyway. The point of this passage actually _isn’t_ the literal resurrection of the dead. It’s the LORD trying to bring hope to ancient Israel. At this point in history, Israel had been conquered by Nabú-kudúrri-usúr 2 of the neo-Babylonian Empire (KJV “Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon”), and deported to Tel Aviv, Iraq. (Tel Aviv, Israel is named after Ezekiel’s village.) Ezekiel and his family had been part of the first deportation, a decade before that destruction, so he wasn’t around to witness the temple get destroyed. He heard about it after the fact, from survivors. Nabú had installed Mattaniah ben Joash—whom Nabú renamed Zedekiah—to rule Jerusalem as his puppet king. Zedekiah proved insubordinate, and after 12 years Nabú had enough, and personally overthrew him. He invaded, besieged, and destroyed Jerusalem. His soldiers burnt the temple down. (The first temple was made of gold-plated cedar, which made it far easier to destroy than the stone temple the Romans knocked over.) Word got back to Tel Aviv. Up to that point, the refugees had hoped some day they’d go home. Didn’t know when; just knew Jerusalem was waiting for them. Now it wasn’t. No more homeland. No more city. No more daily worship for the LORD, so for priests like Ezekiel, no job to return to. They were gonna die in Iraq. If you’re an American who’s old enough to remember when the World Trade Center was destroyed in 2001, the destruction of the temple felt _way_ worse. For Israelis it was a blow to both their patriotism _and_ their religion. It didn’t only feel like their country was destroyed, but like they were now utterly cut off from the LORD. It felt like being damned. So, through Ezekiel, God sent ’em a message of hope. _Ezekiel_ 37.1-10 KWL 1The LORD’s hand took me, and by the LORD’s Spirit he brought me out: 2 _God_ put me in a valley full of bones. He made me walk round and round them. _“Look how very many, all over the surface of the valley!_ _Look, how very dry!”_ 3 _God_ told me, _“Son of Adam._ _Can these bones live?”_ I said, “Master LORD, _only_ you know.” 4 _God_ told me, _“Prophesy over these bones._ _Tell these dry bones, ‘Listen to the L ORD’s word.’ ”_ 5My Master LORD tells these bones, _“Look!_ _I put a spirit in you._Live.__ 6 _I put sinews on you. I grow muscle on you._ _I encase you in skin. I give you the Spirit._ _Live. Know I’m the L ORD.”_ 7I prophesied as instructed. At the sound of my prophecy, look: Shaking, and bone came together with bone. 8I saw—look!—sinews and flesh grew on them. Skin encased them. _But_ there was no Spirit in them. 9 _God_ told me, _“Prophesy to the Spirit._ _Prophesy, son of Adam!_ _Tell the Spirit this: ‘My Master L ORD says this._ _Spirit, come from the four winds!_ _Blow into these who were killed._ _They _will_ live.”_ 10I prophesied as instructed. The Spirit came into them. They live! They stand on their feet—a very, very great army. #### It’s not actually about _our_ resurrection. At about this point, Christians stop reading _Ezekiel_ and start preaching about how this passage foretells our resurrection from the dead. Because we _will_ rise from the dead at Jesus’s second coming. We’ll be dry bones and dust—or ashes, if we’ve been cremated or died in a fire. But God will reassemble us and we’ll live forever. And while that’s true, _Ezekiel_ is actually _not_ about us. It’s about the restoration of ancient Israel, which was fulfilled when Zerubabel ben Šealtiel brought exiles back to Jerusalem to reestablish it and rebuild the temple. As you can tell from the next batch of verses. Sometimes Christian preachers will actually read ’em to their audiences. But then they suffer a freakish bout of amnesia: They read it, then forget it, and _still_ interpret the passage to suit themselves. You remember how James wrote about a person who looks at his reflection, then immediately forgets it? Jm 1.22-25 You’d _think_ James was using hyperbole, but that’s precisely how some preachers behave with the bible. They read it, then it blinks out of their brains, and they preach their own agenda. Now let’s read it and _actually_ look at it. _Ezekiel_ 37.11-14 KWL 11 _God_ told me, _“Son of Adam,_ _these bones are the whole house of Israel._ _Look, they say, ‘Our bones are dry._ _Our hope is dead. We’re cut off.’_ 12 _So prophesy! Tell them this:_ _‘My Master L ORD says this.’_ _Look, I’m opening your tombs._ _I’m taking you out of your tombs, my people._ _I bring you to the _very_ ground of Israel._ 13 _You’ll know I’m the L ORD when I open your tombs._ _When I bring you out of your tombs, my people,_ 14 __I’ll_ put my Spirit in you. Live._ __I’ll_ put you on the ground, and you’ll know I’m the LORD._ _I said it; I’ll do it,”_ promises the LORD. The Jews were calling themselves dead. God reminded them he _raises_ the dead. Losing Jerusalem and the temple felt like the end of the world. Obviously it wasn’t. And the _real_ end of the world is actually the beginning of the _next_ world, so God’s followers _still_ have no reason to despair. That is, unless we’ve only put our hope in earthly things, like homelands, temples, wealth, heritage, good reputation, family, jobs, _anything_ with an expiration date. Our hope needs to be in God alone. ’Cause everything ends. But God raises the dead. And yeah, it took a few decades after Ezekiel’s prophecy, but God _did_ let his people return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple. You _should_ know this from the fact Jesus went to temple. (You _do_ read your bible, right?) Anyway, because God resurrected the dead in this vision in _Ezekiel_ , Pharisees realized he’s gonna raise the dead at the end of the world, and made it part of their End Times teachings. Sadducees, who didn’t consider _Ezekiel_ to be bible, didn’t believe in resurrection either—even though the LORD had told Moses and the Hebrews, “I kill and make alive” Dt 32.39 in the books they _did_ consider bible. God can create humans from dust, Ge 2.7 and God can re-create humans from the dust we decayed into. Jesus’s own resurrection demonstrates how Pharisees weren’t wrong about resurrection. He will raise us at the End, same as he raised Jesus. Same as he raised those folks in Ezekiel’s vision. It’ll happen. #### Illegitimately borrowing the story. But like I said, people gotta borrow this story and make it about ourselves, and many a preacher will do just that. Wrongly. Because unless the Holy Spirit personally tells us, “I’m gonna do for you as I showed Ezekiel I can do for dry bones,” we have no basis for claiming this story for our personal circumstances. No Christian does. Imagine a Christian wants to have a kid, reads in _Genesis_ about how the LORD promised Abraham a kid, and now says, “See, God tells _me_ , through these verses, _I’m_ gonna have a kid.” Or if a Christian reads about how the LORD told Solomon he’d make him rich, and says, “See, God tells _me_ he’s gonna make me richer than every other king.” Or if I took God’s message to Joseph that his son would save his people from their sins, and start claiming, “See, God tells _me_ my son’s gonna be Messiah.” It’s just that stupid. But Christians commit this kind of stupidity on a regular basis. And because they do it, we get the idea _we_ can do it. _We_ can take prophecies which don’t belong to us, and claim ’em for ourselves. We’re even _taught_ this by various Christians: If you _don’t_ carjack a prophecy, it means you lack faith. You just gotta believe harder. Yeah, these people are only setting themselves up for failure and grave disappointment. ’Cause God is under no obligation at all to follow through with what they’re claiming for themselves. They’ll never prosper in the way they expect. The result is they’ll wind up doing one of these three things: > **SPIN.** When the prophecy doesn’t come true for them, they’ll stretch its meaning till it fits their circumstances. If they expect God will give them a child and he doesn’t, they’ll claim the prophecy actually meant _spiritual_ children, and the kids in Sunday School count as their own. If they expect God’ll give them money and he doesn’t, they’ll claim he meant _spiritually_ wealthy—or that God makes them comfortable despite their monthly struggle to keep ahead of their bills. The Jehovah’s Witnesses claimed Jesus’s second coming would happen in 1914, and when it didn’t they claimed they _really_ meant he took on a new heavenly position that year. Not that anything on earth really changed any. Or at all. > > Such people will claim, “God has fulfilled his every promise to me!” And they’re right; he has; he fulfilled his _legitimate_ promises to them. But he didn’t fulfill any of his _imaginary_ promises to them, and they’re totally lying to themselves about _that_. > > It may be misplaced faith. But their denial is actually damaging _all_ their faith, both misplaced _and_ well-placed. And when other Christians realize they’re claiming God fulfilled stuff when he didn’t really, it’s gonna ding _their_ faith. (As for people who don’t believe in prophecy and God’s promises, it’s just gonna give them something more to mock.) > > **STAGGER.** When the prophecy doesn’t come true for them, they’ll back up, look at what they’ve done, and realize they were wrong. “Wait: That verse wasn’t for _me_. Well, don’t I feel silly.” > > Which is great! But the reason I say they’re staggering, is because most of them don’t learn their lesson and never do this again. They totally do it again. Many times. Hey, everybody _else_ they know is doing it. > > I once had a pastor who’d regularly claim God wanted him to do some huge project… only for him to backtrack a few years later because nothing would come of it. I gotta give him props for admitting _he_ got God wrong. Problem is, in the beginning, he was so sure he was right, he’d nudge people out of leadership—even the church—because he was so insistent the project was God’s will, and _must_ go through. And he never _did_ learn his lesson: Get confirmation before you run amok with “God’s plan.” (And get it from _real_ prophets, not yes-men.) > > **QUIT.** Worst-case scenario: Their faith not only takes a massive hit, but they give up altogether. They quit God. > > After all, the only reason they glommed onto these promises, and insisted God was gonna come through for them, was because they wanted the stuff in those promises. They didn’t want _God_ so much; just the stuff. They wanted God to grant them a worry-free life, riches, good health, the usual. God promises none of those things. Mammon will, but it can’t raise the dead, y’know. This is why we gotta steer people away from faith-damaging misinterpretations of out-of-context scriptures. Our takeaway from Ezekiel’s vision is to remember: God _can_ restore anything. You may think it’s dead and gone forever, but if God gets involved, he can always bring it back. The catch is, he’s gotta _say_ he’s bringing it back, like he told Ezekiel and the Israelis he was bringing their nation back. If he doesn’t, we can’t hold him to the stuff he never promised.

How on earth is the Valley of Dry Bones story in Ezekiel an advent scripture? Well, resurrection is part of the second coming, and the advent season is when we look forward to the second coming. Simple. Now, on to the story!—when you click the link.

https://www.christalmighty.net/2018/06/bones.html

3 months ago 0 1 0 0